Tuesday, September 5, 2006

I have had many anti-gay advocates come to my blog or use other blogs to make challenges of the gay community or me. I have asked many anti-gay people to tell me the goal, none have ever really answered the question. So I have decided I would put out a challenge to them in good faith. I am sure some will just use this as a venue to attack me or GLBT people, but some may use this as an opportunity to show us what it is they are really trying to accomplish from their point of view. This is a chance to really show GLBT people and their supporters that your intentions really are rooted in love and good faith.

The Challenge: (Please answer the following questions)

Part 1: Please explain to me what the world would look like if your mission was accomplished when it comes to gays. Paint me a picture of how the world would look if that which you are trying to achieve comes to “BE”. Show me what the end goal would look like when it is finally met.

Part 2: Considering lots of people don’t believe the same way you do, tell me if the actions, process and appraoch you are taking is really helping people. How is your ministry, blog, website or organization helping to reach that goal.

I would be particularly interested in DL Foster’s, Peter La Barbera’s, Matt Barber’s, Stephen Bennett’s, even someone from Exodus’ well thought out and REALISTIC answers.

I would ask the pro-gay people to refrain from making any assumptions about the answer or if I will even get an answer. We really need to let the other side speak. I know it is hard to bite your tougue or in this case your fingertips on the keys, but give them a chance. Lets hear the answers then respond.

UPDATE: I emailed this challenge to one anti-gay adovcate who replied:

Oh. Perhaps some day I will write something on this topic.

I will be emailing it to others and see there replies. I will only post those replies if given permission. I will not reveal who replied, just what they replied.

These people were kind enough to reply, and we should be kind in our reponses. It appears Adam thinks homosexuality is an addictioin and Mark thinks we are broken. While I disagree with both of them I do recognize Mark kept all of his comments to his religious convictions, while Adam is using more scientific approaches and feels homosexuality is a disease. (As I alway reply to this notion of gay being a disease, if this love I have with my partner of 7 years is some disease, I have no interest in a cure).

after reading both responses two things come to mind, one doesnt know his bible, and second the other is trying to make up for ones beliefs, with medical ideals.

All scripture on gays in the bible, Refers to Moses laws (Any Catholic will tell you this), which means it is not God’s laws, in fact God’s laws are very easily defined as the “Ten Commandments”.

I would love to live in a world that defined the Detroit Lions the best football team, but the reality is, it’s not. Science has over and over again, turned down the notion that Homosexuality is a mental disorder. I would say if you hate someone because they are different, that there is the real mental disorder.

Rob,
is it that he doesnt know his bible or he just doesn’t see it the same? Could that be said about lots of things?

I use this example once in awhile but draw an “M” on a piece of paper, then turn it sideways. Now the “m” is a “3”, now turn it again, its a “w”. We all see things differently from where we stand.. I am not sure I want to say that makes anyone wrong. Even if I wan’t to jump up and down screaming its an “m”

I found Adam’s response the most interesting, because his arguments perfectly represent the type of misunderstanding that I often see with fundamentalists – where “moral relativism” is discussed. Adam decries that we can no longer distinguish between good and bad in our society, and uses the following examples:

So, in our modern PC culture, one cannot say that a woman who stayed married to her husband for fifty years did any better than one who got a no fault divorce after five. The chaste Virgin is no better than the single parent woman who has had three children out of wedlock.

One of the hallmarks of fundamentalism is this black-and-white approach. Divorce and out-of-wedlock births are always bad, and long marriages and virginity are always bad. There is no room for assessing the circumstances of each case.

I do respect the woman who got a no-fault divorce after 5 years more than the one who stayed married for 50, assuming both of them were involved in violent relationships with batterers. That type of circumstance should and must color our judgements about other people’s actions, AND it requires us to see them as individuals, not as stereotypical categories – “divorcees” or “sluts” (Interesting, also, that Adam chose only female sinners for his explanation).

Mark and Adam,
There are those of religious conviction that sharing blood and organ donation is a sin, they are definitely taboo according to them.
And such activity has had it’s risks. Of course, the more often this practice has been accepted, the better and more understood it has become.
We agree that those whose religious beliefs forbid it, cannot demand the government make those decisions regarding accepting blood donation for others.
Those who do not share those beliefs are not prohibited from going about the rest of their daily business conditional on whether they believe the same or not.

Whatever you believe about homosexual people and homosexual behavior has no bearing on the rest of what a gay person can and will do and competence in those pursuits.
You Mark say that our society makes no distinctions between certain behaviors detrimental to society and others that aren’t.
When in fact it’s YOU who cannot understand what distinguishes gay behavior from addiction, disease or other pathology in human behavior.

If only your religion informs you of homosexuality, it’s informing you the way other issues of science were forbidden to be revealed by religious leadership and belief.
In this, you don’t want to know OTHER than what your belief tells you and you dont want to EXPERIENCE other than what your belief tells you.
And anything that reveals what homosexuality is and always has been, will not be believed by you anyway.

It has been revealed for example by DNA and other exemplars that black and white people are not different ‘races’.
But a white supremacist wouldn’t want to believe that.
They’d only want to believe that white influenced civilization is superior and got that way through no influence by other groups.
It’s also known that heterosexuals and homosexuals are not differentiated by DNA necessarily that is an inferior, deformed or anamolous.
Meaning, homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, it is different, that is all and cultural artifice created the ‘gay culture’, so to speak.
But gays and lesbians can and do function equally when given equal opportunity…and sometimes DESPITE not having it.
You bear the earmarks of heterosex supremacists, believing fully in that supremacy regardless of actual character or virtue, but simply regarding heterosexuality as a virtue itself and denying positive contribution and success by homosexuals and to the success of heterosexual society as well.

You define and expect to define what a gay person is, and is supposed to do, unequal to yourselves.
You simply expect also too, for YOUR chosen behavior (religious belief) to be protected Constitutionally, without regard to how it also restricts the rights of a fellow citizen.
Something which you have no right to do.
Gay people have existed before recorded history, and in all societies known to man.
This isn’t a matter of opinion, and neither is a clear naturally structured difference in sexuality.
All things in nature have differences and having a sexual difference among human beings that is random and not influenced by location or family structure or culture, only makes sense.
Some human beings have figured that out.
That you don’t want to believe it, is YOUR problem and that shouldn’t be a matter written into Constitutional law.

The point of the Bible is that, because there is just so much there (both potentially divinely inspired, as well as obviously man-made), there is much room for interpretation.

Let’s face it, the book’s fricken huge.

That room for interpretation, at least in my opinion, is one of the great things about the Bible (and, indeed, about most holy writings). What you take from it can, in a way, be thought of as God seeking a direct link with you. When people take solace in it during troubled times, perhaps that’s God working in their lives to provide them some comfort. When people find inspiration in it during murkey times, pehaps that’s God providing clarity.

And yes, even when people find hate in it, I am forced to admit that perhaps that is also God working through them for some purpose. Although, I am loathe to suggest that God is working to promote hatred and I am more in these cases to attribute this to man’s desire and less to listening to God.

In any event, all of these people are seeking a direct connection with the divine and possibly the Bible provides that. Not, perhaps, so much in what it says, but in the inherant meditation/prayer/expectant waiting that goes on while one reads the Bible and considers those passages that seem to have personal relevence.

So I am always uncomfortable wholly dismissing someone as not “knowing” their Bible simply because their understanding doesn’t mirror my own.

Now, with that said…

Mark’s response utterly confused me. After reading it through several times, I’m still not sure where he’s coming from other than it’s a seemingly very dark place. In situations like this, even though I despise “bible verse battles”, I always fall back on Matthew 7:1-5

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Maybe we are “broke” in a spiritual sense. However, if that’s true, then it’s also equally true that all people are just as broke by the very nature of their humanity, including Mark. I would reject this viewpoint, however, because it smacks of middle-ages fearmongering and worshipping of god not out of love, but out of fear or duty. I can not concieve of a god that would promote love while threatening those he professes to love.

we have way too much history here in America that shows the sort of people who interpreted the Bible for the rest of us, also interpreted it to mean slavery was okay, even justified.
They justified the subjugation of women and Jim Crow.
There was also justification written into law that made anti Semitism welcome.
And Mark and Adam expect us to agree that their interpretations of Scripture allows them to define gay people as detrimental, pathological and ill suited for equal protection under the law?

I didn’t sign up to be subject to the Bible.
We are ALL subject to the Constitution. And so far, nobody gay isn’t against adhering to the laws of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Nor are any gay people saying that Christian behavior shouldn’t be protected.
Gay folks don’t exist at the expense of anyone else OR their rights.
However, Mark and Adam express that gay people are to be sacrificed in this manner, when even convicted murderers, serial adulterers and the mentally ill and addicted clearly are not.
Especially when it comes to marriage.

Competence in citizenhip has been proven by gay people.
Therefore the rights of it are to be guaranteed.
Competence in religious belief, is not enforcable by our laws and freedom.
Being sexually different (regardless of a companiate relationship) isn’t a moral choice.
Being religious definitely is a choice.
I know what the Bible says about homosexuality.
It’s ALWAYS going to say it.
Homosexuality and gay people doesn’t affect other people’s rights and responsibility.

But things like theft and adultery, divorce, lying and murder are horribly hurtful, dangerous and devastating.
They affect a human being the SAME way.
This is universal to societal order and cooperation.
But when gay folks ARE cooperating with society just SHY of BEING heterosexual, then yes…it’s too much for the rest of us to demand.
And keeping gay folks from cooperating WITH society on the same terms as others is unfair and unworkable.
Mark and Adam, that’s all I’m saying.
For what you expect for yourself, you must also expect the same for and from your gay neighbors.
You can’t have one without the other and call yourselves in understanding of moral standards.

I think it is important to note, that as much as gays and lesbians are not going anywhere, neither are these people. The question remains can we get both of these sides to come to a place where everyone’s views are respected.

We could spend years trying to point out how the bible should or shouldn’t be read, in fact we have spent centuries doing that. It takes alot of energy that could be better spent on both sides trying to figure out who to live together in the world.

Simply enough people need to come to the logical conclusion that we can’t all be right, but we do have to live on this planet.

What can people like Mark and Adam do to start letting us live our lives in an equal way that yet respects our beliefs. I see that is no easy answer, but if we spent as much time on that as we do trying prove each other wrong wouldn’t we be much closer to the answer?

Well, I suppose I could try this. For one, gay marriage should exist in a legal sense. If churches don’t want to marry gay couples, fine. Perhaps marriage shouldn’t be a legal definition at all anymore, but unions are. The churches can still use the word marriage all they want to describe heterosexual marriages. Gay people can claim that their unions count as a marriage too, but one only has to agree with that if they believe it.

As for hate crimes, of course discrimination against gay people is wrong, but its hard to categorize. It’s easy to show that physical violence against gay people should be considered a crime. Any speech that could be considered a “threat” should be illegal. Christians can still tell gay people that they’re going to hell and there’s a cure all they want, as long as they don’t say anything that could be considered a threat. By that I mean saying things like all gays should be shot or that they should all be packed on an island. You get the idea. (of course, this area is debatable too, we still get the KKK saying things like that all the time about different races, but then again, I think there should be some stricter laws against speech like that too)

Only thing I’m a little split on is on whether Christians should be able to protest gay marriage ceremonies. (I know I said we should probably change the legal term of marriage to a form of union, but I’m just trying to use easy to understand phrases here)The thing is, we have union and commitment ceremonies right now, but conservatives really don’t protest it too much because it hasn’t gained into full equality yet. I think if it was legal, they’d want to protest it. I say treat it like some states have treated “funeral protests”. Make them do it at a distance from where the event is taking place. They should be able to speak their mind to passerby, but I doubt any couple and their friends and relatives care to see something like that on their wedding day. Remember the protesters that were given their own large corner to protest on like 2 or 3 blocks away from the Academy Awards? Something like that.

Redo the notion of marriage completely. The very idea that a “religious institution” (and a highly specific one at that) should be used as a criteria to afford certain members of the U.S. society additional rights and responsibilities clearly violates the First Amendment in even the most conservative reading.

At the same time, churches and religious traditions across the country should never be forced by the government to recognize marriages that they feel are against their teachings.

The only fair thing to do is make governmental “marriage” wholly divorced (heh heh) from religious “marriage” for all couples, regardless of sex. Couples wishing to be married in the eyes of a specific religious tradition would have to find appropriate religious leaders to conduct such a ceremony as per that tradition, while that tradition would be free to decline any and all petitions that it teaches against. These marriages would have no legal baring, however, and would only be unions in the eyes of that specific religious tradition.

Should a couple then wish to pursue the business end of a marriage, they would have to apply for such a contract through specific government channels and departments. As this would be, in essence, a business transaction, one’s sex could hardly be used as a criteria for granting or denying permission. The criteria could be wholly seperated from religious bias and be more objective.

That way, everyone gets what they want. Religious institutions that have a mind to can still deny same-sex couples marriage recognition under their faith while those same couples can still get the governmental recognition that they desire. The fact that everyone must apply for both of these insitutions does away with the “seperate but equal” question.

The thing is Quakerjono, marriage IS already separated from religious ceremony and registry.
It’s also separate from procreation (although recent court rulings based their arguments on that and ignored gay parents).

Gay couples do not change the fundamental laws of marriage as we know it, just the definition of the couple changes to include people who are gay.
That’s ALL.

Any other arguments are brought up just for argument, but they have no merit with regard to people who are gay.

Note that the anti gay are the only people bringing up other arrangements, and non human issues.
Whenever someone goes there: and they did it arguing against mixed marriages of all kinds, it was always about purity.
Either of the culture, or the blood of the children.

And since gays and lesbians are no exception in ANY human society, the law expanding to include gay couples is the last logical step in marriage security and government recognition.
No one should have to ask permission of anyone to be with the ONE person according to marriage and family law now.
Nor ask permission to care for children.
Heterosexuals never ask permission to have a family.

This is a matter of the standards of marriage being the same for everyone, regardless of their genetic or cultural differences.
So far no one’s characteristics keep them from legally marrying.

The straight world is literally making up new rules against gay folks on this issue, and I’m tired of it.

Joe, i would agree that in many things the only differance is how one views things, however in the case of Moses Laws Vs God’s laws, this is very common theology, that no one who has either went to bible college or study the bible can deny.

Regan, I’m not quite sure I’m following what you’re saying. It seems you are saying that separate instutions for marriage already exist in relation to government structure and religious institution and that all that needs to change is the definition of “couple”.

I think we may be, at least partially, in agreement.

Your point about the definition of couple is key. Currently the United States government generally defines “couple” using a very Christian basis. Not only is this (obviously) religious, but it is very specific. This is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. I wholly agree that, in the eyes of the government, the definition of “couple” needs to be changed to include same-sex partnerings.

At the same time, it is disingenuous to deny that the institution of marriage lacks a religious component. While it is wrong for the government to base the granting of extended rights and responsibilities on a single religious institution, it is equally wrong for the government to force religious institutions to acknowledge unions that they do not support. This is the double-edged nature of the First Amendment.

This is where same-sex partnerships may indeed call into question the fundamental laws of marriage, at least in the eyes of religious tradition. If a religious tradition choses to not change their definition of a couple, then that must be respected. However, the government should not be able to deny rights to a couple on the basis of that tradition’s teachings.

I don’t believe anyone is making up new rules (although I seem to be advocating for it). I do believe, however, that the rules that are currently in existance are based on a false premise and should be modified to be brought more in line with the ideals of a equitable and just society.

they are never going to address hate crimes because deep down their happy everytime a gay person is beat up or killed. because then they can say see how dangerous and deadly being gay is and how these people could avoid it if they “left the homosexual lifestyle” These people never condemned the murderers of Matthew Sheppard, The silence after his death was deafening. Yet they bitch all day about what happened to Mary Stachowicz, and they claim she was targeted for being christian when in reality it was because he was treated the exact same way by his mother before she kicked him out and he overreacted. It had nothing to do with being christian it had everything to do with an inconsiderate bigot.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is one of the stupidest plans ever thought up by a man. The thing is, no one’s rights will be infringed upon, even if a huge group of gay people joined. Second, I doubt soldiers being shot at could care less what the sexuality of their backup is. Third, if you’re so blatantly homophobic that you can’t even stand the idea of living in the same building as gay people, don’t join the military. It’s as simple as that.

Housing shouldn’t be denied to gay people. It’s not like anyone is going to get hurt, and gay people deserve to live where ever they can afford. In this matter, I’d have to say screw the people who don’t want gay people to live near them. It’s way too much like in the 1950s and 60s when black people were constantly bribed to move ut of predominately white neighborhoods. That, and I don’t mean to enforce a stereotype, but you know what happens to house pricing and general upkeep when alot of gay people move in, don’t you? Who could be against that? :P

Gay teachers follow in the same area as gay jobs in employment. I don’t see how a gay teacher is going to affect anything unless it’s a private school, in which they have every right to bar him. In public school, well, he’s a teacher. He’s most likely not going to go through a rights rant (I know many history teachers who made a general rule to themselves not to mention their political beliefs) and generally, for most classes, the students really don’t need to know. In high school, I could see students asking this teacher or making rumors and what-not, but these are highschoolers. Highschoolers can make their own decisions on how to react to this. They don’t need mommy’s and daddy’s help. Any grades lower most likely even mention it to the teacher.

As for job discrimination it depends on the job. Of course, for example, a lesbian pastor isn’t going to get a jobrunning a conservative church. The thing is, however, that unless the job directly correlates with the owner’s religious affiliation or political beliefs, there’s no reason to discriminate.

they are never going to address hate crimes because deep down their happy everytime a gay person is beat up or killed. because then they can say see how dangerous and deadly being gay is and how these people could avoid it if they “left the homosexual lifestyle”

I agree Dan, Adam, your comments are just generalizations about them. I would say most are not “happy” when anyone is hurt by violence, I just don’t think they want to see the part they may play in that violence.

That comment seems more like a cheap shot against them and you know how I feel about that. It just doesn’t get us anywhere.

They are people, I know it is as hard for us to see that as it is for them to see us as people.

my whole point about the hate crimes is that if they are against it then why do they offer no suggestions to reduce or eliminate such violence. If they trully opposed it they would not be against hate crime laws or education efforts, If I must say their inactions speak louder than words.

my whole point about the hate crimes is that if they are against it then why do they offer no suggestions to reduce or eliminate such violence. If they truly opposed it they would not be against hate crime laws or education efforts, If I must say their inaction’s speak louder than words.

Yeah. How exactly (besides through legislation and education) do we end hate crimes?

I hope Joe doesn’t mind if I soap box for a moment:

The similarity between gay folks and the Christian. Catholics for example, during early days were forced to live ‘in the closet’. Since wearing a cross would be a dead give away they switched it off to using the fish symbol. Gay folks, living in the modern era closet, have taken to using the rainbow as their mark.

But it’s not just in history that the symmetry can be found. For every single wingnut Fred Phelps loving queer hatin’ blog on the internet, there’s a gay blog that will regularly display complete disregard for people of Christian faith….not just on the issue of gay rights, but on just about every issue they get the opportunity. Both sides maintain stance of no-compromise moral superiority. Both sides use each other’s worst case as battle crys.

And then you have Adam’s embittered pile of crap where he sits there and potshots every right leaner with “ohhh they don’t care about hate crimes because they want to kill the queers to punish them”.

Allow me to be the first to say: BS. In 20+ years of going through Catholic education, I’ve never heard a single Christian ever say “Yeah, that Matthew Shepard guy deserved it”. When in fact, on numerous occasions I was bored to death listening to recounting on the horror of what happened as an example of why we must be tolerant.

I’m pro-gay for a few reasons. First and foremost, one of my closest pals is gay. She’s a great human being and it forces you to rethink how you see the world. Secondly, I realized that gay folks say dumb things at the exact same rate as straight folks, Adam’s comment considered, quite often.

The similarity between gay folks and the Christian. Catholics for example, during early days were forced to live ‘in the closet’. Since wearing a cross would be a dead give away they switched it off to using the fish symbol. Gay folks, living in the modern era closet, have taken to using the rainbow as their mark.

Which is exactly the right precursor to answer Joe’s question for how the anti-gay right and GLBT people can get along. Just as this country introduced the concept of full religious tolerance, which does not require all of us to agree with all religions, but respect the right of people to make their own religious “lifestyle choice” without fear of being discriminated against, so we should do for GLBT people. If all these “Christians” can get along with what they consider “heretics” in our society, there is no reason for them not to be willing to live alongside other “sinners,” like GLBT people.

I was raised Roman Catholic, a church that does not recognize legal divorce, or the right of members to marry after such a legal separation. Even though such marriages are legal, the Roman Catholic church is not required to officiate or bless them, but at the same time, a Roman Catholic hosital cannot refuse spousal health benefits to a nurse who has been remarried after a divorce. Nor could a Catholic adoption agency refuse to place children in that nurse’s home, simply because he/she was previously divorced. Even though that nurse is an adulterer according to the church (a sin exactly equal in immorality to being gay), the church, in its public dealings, cannot make any negative assumptions about that nurse’s capability for a job, or fitness to parent.

Where then, is the difference with GLBT people, who clearly have a religious lifestyle difference from “Christians” (I use the quotes because the word is nearly meaningless when you consider all the varieties of religions that claim to be Christian in nature)? Why are we so disgusting that the anti-gay right cannot live alongside us?

Why are we so disgusting that the anti-gay right cannot live alongside us?

I think that’s an extremely complex question and should never be posed as a rhetorical. Better yet: I think it has a lot less to do with religion then the face value of the Christian Right vs. Gay Left lets on.

1. Gay folks look like straight folks, talk like straight folks, want the same things as straight folks. But they’re different. They’re gay. If gay could be identified by color of skin, it would be a far easier road to hoe. There’s a natural distrust for gays because they’re percieved to be different and you can’t tell who they are.

2. Nobody know what ‘gay’ is. The average straight wingnut doesn’t know any gay people or at least doesn’t know that he knows gay people. What they do know of gay folks comes from stereotypes on TV (queer eye for the straight guy or that other sit-com-Will and Grace I think?).

The absense of well known leaders in the gay community presents a problem as well. The gay community has sort of unwittingly tried to substitute well known leaders for ‘out’ celebrities whom nobody likes in the first place. Ellen Degeneres and Rosie Odonnel don’t hurt the cause.

3. Gender rolls, gender rolls, gender rolls. This might be more a problem for me, a guy who’s a -2 on the Kinsey Scale.

My girlfriend (who’s a free agent in the sexual sense) has a very very fem gay male friend. If you’ll excuse the term, I mean it as a descriptive method, not as an insult, the dude is flaming. The guy is a living pain in the ass. About 3 months ago, her and I were at a party with him.

He started running his mouth about the South Side of Chicago.

Now, being a South Sider, there’s only one way to handle it: Put him on the ground. Straight/Gay/White/Black, it doesn’t matter. Some guy comes at your side of town like he knows something he’s essentially calling your friends, family, parish, etc. ‘white trash’. This dick couldn’t find the south side with a GPS.

The problem, of course, is that ‘Jeff-er-eeeeee’ can’t be held to the male standard as far as that goes. You have to give him the girl free pass on it.

And what would I be proving if I did hold him to the same standard? That some poor guy can’t defend himself but has a big mouth?

Like it or not, we still live in an alpha-male driven society. That structure either needs to be modified or gay folks need to find a way to fit within it.